Gợi ý cho Task 1

1. Tìm hiểu số liệu trong 3 nhóm biểu đồ

School rooms at university

Undergraduates:

• Very satisfied: 62%

• Quite satisfied: 13%

• Not satisfied: 25%

Postgraduates:

• Very satisfied: 63% (nhỉnh hơn 1%)

• Quite satisfied: 14%

• Not satisfied: 23% (ít phàn nàn hơn 2%)

Vậy thì là hai nhóm gần như giống nhau. Khoảng 3/5 sinh viên rất hài lòng, khoảng 1/4 không hài lòng.

University cafeteria

Undergraduates:

• Very satisfied: 52%

• Quite satisfied: 22%

• Not satisfied: 26%

Postgraduates:

• Very satisfied: 73% (cao hơn undergrads 21 điểm %)

• Quite satisfied: 16%

• Not satisfied: 11% (chỉ bằng ~một nửa so với undergrads)

–> Khác biệt rõ nhất: postgraduate hài lòng với căng tin nhiều hơn hẳn – vừa tỉ lệ “very satisfied” cao, tỉ lệ “not satisfied” thấp.

School facilities

Undergraduates:

• Very satisfied: 85%

• Quite satisfied: 14%

• Not satisfied: 1%

Postgraduates:

• Very satisfied: 43%

• Quite satisfied: 32%

• Not satisfied: 25%

Chỗ này là nơi mâu thuẫn mạnh nhất:

• Undergrads: cực kỳ hài lòng (gần như không ai phàn nàn).

• Postgrads: tỉ lệ “very satisfied” chỉ bằng một nửa undergrads, và 1/4 không hài lòng.

d. Những điểm tổng quát dùng cho Overview

Bạn có thể rút ra 3 ý lớn:

1. Đa số sinh viên nói chung hài lòng (very hoặc quite) với các cơ sở, nhưng mức độ khác nhau theo từng hạng mục.

2. School rooms: hai nhóm có mức độ hài lòng tương tự.

3. Cafeteria vs School facilities:

   • Với cafeteria, postgraduates hài lòng hơn nhiều.

   • Với school facilities, undergraduates lại hài lòng trội hơn nhiều.

3 điểm này chính là ý chính cho đoạn Overview.

2. Cách tổ chức bài Task 1

Cấu trúc 4 đoạn chuẩn

1. Introduction – Paraphrase đề (nhớ đừng copy y chang nhen).

2. Overview – Nêu xu hướng chính, so sánh tổng thể, không dùng số liệu chi tiết.

3. Body 1 – So sánh undergraduate vs postgraduate cho từng loại (rooms, cafeteria, facilities).

4. Body 2 – So sánh ba loại cơ sở trong cùng một nhóm (đặc biệt là sự tương phản strong: undergrads thích facilities nhất, postgrads thích cafeteria hơn facilities).

3. Gợi ý viết như sau:

Introduction: Nhớ paraphrase

• The pie charts illustrate the proportions of undergraduate and postgraduate students at a UK university who expressed different levels of satisfaction with three facilities in 2007.

Bạn có thể đổi: levels of happiness → levels of satisfaction, different facilities → school rooms, the university cafeteria and other school facilities.

Overview

Viết 2–3 câu như:

• Overall, most students were satisfied with the university’s facilities, although the extent of satisfaction varied across areas.

• While the two groups reported very similar opinions about school rooms, their views on the cafeteria and other facilities differed markedly.

• Undergraduates were especially pleased with general school facilities, whereas postgraduates were most positive about the cafeteria.

Chỉ nêu xu hướng, không ghi %, không phải chỗ ghi chi tiết. Cũng cẩn thận coi chừng lặp từ.

Body 1 – So sánh 2 nhóm cho từng loại facility

Bạn có thể viết theo pattern:

• Regarding school rooms, the proportions of undergraduates and postgraduates who were very satisfied were almost identical, at 62% and 63% respectively…

• A similar share of each group were not satisfied, at one quarter for undergraduates and just under this figure for postgraduates.

Tiếp với cafeteria:

• In terms of the cafeteria, postgraduates were considerably more positive. Nearly three quarters (73%) of them were very satisfied, compared with just over half (52%) of undergraduates, while the share of dissatisfied students among postgraduates was less than half that of undergraduates (11% versus 26%).

Rồi school facilities:

• The pattern was reversed for other school facilities. As many as 85% of undergraduates were very satisfied and only 1% were unhappy, whereas the corresponding figures for postgraduates were 43% and 25%.

Body 2 – So sánh giữa các facility trong từng nhóm

Ví dụ:

• For undergraduates, school facilities received the highest rating, followed by school rooms and then the cafeteria.

• By contrast, postgraduates rated the cafeteria more favourably than both school rooms and other facilities, with the latter attracting the lowest level of strong satisfaction.

Đoạn này có thể ngắn, nhưng giúp bạn “make comparisons where relevant”. Chỗ này giúp bạn có thêm điểm chút!

4. Sample answer

The pie charts illustrate how satisfied undergraduate and postgraduate students at a UK university were with three types of facilities in 2007.

Overall, most students expressed a positive opinion of the facilities, but the strength of satisfaction varied considerably. While the two groups viewed school rooms in a very similar way, their ratings of the cafeteria and other school facilities differed sharply.

With regard to school rooms, around 62% of undergraduates and 63% of postgraduates reported being very satisfied, and roughly a quarter of each group were not satisfied. The remaining minority, about 13% and 14% respectively, were quite satisfied. In terms of the university cafeteria, postgraduates were noticeably happier: almost three quarters were very satisfied, compared with just over half of undergraduates. Furthermore, only 11% of postgraduates were dissatisfied, less than half the proportion seen among undergraduates (26%).

The opposite pattern appears for other school facilities. This area attracted the highest rating from undergraduates, 85% of whom were very satisfied and only 1% not satisfied. Among postgraduates, however, the figure for strong satisfaction was much lower, at 43%, and one quarter of them were unhappy with these facilities.

Gợi ý cho Task 2

Hiểu sâu vấn đề

Đề yêu cầu bạn không chỉ nêu hai quan điểm, mà còn phải thực sự lý giải động cơ, bối cảnh và hệ quả của từng lập luận.

Đề này nói về chính sách quốc gia, quyền lựa chọn cá nhân, đầu tư giáo dục công, và dòng dịch chuyển lao động toàn cầu — đây là những khía cạnh bạn cần mở rộng khi lập luận.

Cách mở bài KHÔNG MECHANICAL

Thay vì các mẫu như:
❌ “This essay will discuss both views and give my opinion.”
❌ “There are differing views about whether…”

→ Dùng một thứ gì đó tự nhiên hơn, như nhận định khái quát, bối cảnh xã hội, hoặc sự thay đổi toàn cầu.

Gợi ý mở bài sáng tạo:

• As international mobility becomes increasingly common, the question of whether highly trained professionals should remain in their home country has become more contentious than ever.

• The debate over professional obligations versus personal freedom is particularly intense in fields such as medicine and engineering, where training is expensive and expertise is scarce.

→ Sau câu mở, bạn chỉ cần nhẹ nhàng dẫn vào việc sẽ xem xét hai quan điểm, không cần template:

• Both perspectives raise important ethical and practical considerations, and a closer look reveals that the issue is far from straightforward.

• Examining both sides helps clarify where the balance between societal needs and individual rights should lie.

Đây chính là cách mở bài Band 7–8: tự nhiên, không “khuôn”.

Bố cục linh hoạt nhưng rõ ràng

Bạn vẫn viết 4 đoạn, nhưng dùng phong cách mềm mại hơn:

Paragraph 2 – Tại sao có người muốn bác sĩ/kỹ sư phải ở lại trong nước?

Tập trung vào:

• chi phí đào tạo (thuế của dân → trách nhiệm phục vụ xã hội)

• thiếu hụt nhân lực (đặc biệt ngành y và kỹ thuật)

• brain drain và tác hại lâu dài

• vấn đề đạo đức nghề nghiệp

• ví dụ dễ hiểu (nhiều nước yêu cầu bác sĩ mới ra trường làm 2–5 năm ở vùng thiếu thốn)

Phong cách viết: phân tích, ĐỪNG liệt kê.

Paragraph 3 – Tại sao họ nên được tự do làm việc ở nước khác?

• quyền tự do nghề nghiệp (fundamental professional autonomy)

• cơ hội phát triển, công nghệ tiên tiến, lương cao

• môi trường làm việc an toàn hơn

• mobility giúp lan tỏa kiến thức, hợp tác quốc tế

• đóng góp kiều hối, mạng lưới chuyên gia toàn cầu

Phong cách viết: phân tích logic + ví dụ.

Paragraph 4 – Opinion nhưng ráng đừng copy  “template” quá

Không dùng:
❌ “In my opinion, I believe that…”

Bạn có thể dùng:

• On balance, it seems more reasonable to…

• Ultimately, I lean towards the view that…

• A more sustainable approach would be…

Từ vựng nâng band (không hoa mỹ quá mức)

• publicly funded training

• ethical obligation vs. personal agency

• retain home-grown talent

• severe manpower shortages

• cross-border professional flow

• knowledge circulation rather than one-way migration

• structural issues within domestic systems

• incentive-based retention policies

Sample Essay:

The question of whether doctors, engineers and other highly trained workers should stay in the country that educated them is a sensitive one. These jobs require years of study and often rely on public funding, so it is understandable that governments and communities hold strong opinions about where these professionals should work after graduating.

One argument is that if a country invests heavily in someone’s training, especially in essential fields like healthcare or engineering, it is reasonable to expect some form of contribution in return. Many countries already struggle with shortages in these sectors, and when new graduates leave immediately for better salaries abroad, the situation can become even worse. From this angle, asking professionals to work in their home country for a few years is seen not as a restriction but as a way to ensure that society benefits from the investment it has made.

On the other hand, many people believe that choosing where to work is a basic professional right. Doctors and engineers often face demanding workloads and limited resources, and moving overseas can offer better career prospects, more modern technology or simply a safer and more supportive environment. In addition, the movement of skilled workers is not always a one-way loss. Many people eventually return home with new skills, or they contribute to their country from abroad through research, partnerships or financial support.

Overall, while I understand the desire to keep trained professionals at home, forcing them to stay is unlikely to be effective in the long run. A more positive approach would be for governments to make working conditions, salaries and career opportunities attractive enough that trained workers choose to remain voluntarily, rather than because they are required to do so.